Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
California Rural Legal Assistance v. LSC
917 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1990) ; Clearinghouse Number: 44700
Description
Ninth Circuit Enjoins LSC Regulation by Affirming CRLA Interpretation of "Financial Assistance" in IRCA
Abstract
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of California Rural Legal Assistance
(CRLA) in this class action seeking to enjoin enforcement of an LSC
regulation that prohibits legal services programs from using LSC
funds to provide legal services to permanent resident aliens who
obtained their status under the Immigration Reform and Control Act
of 1986 (IRCA). The appellate court was asked to consider whether
the district court correctly concluded that legal services is not a
program of "financial assistance" within the meaning of
section 245A(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C
1255a(h)(1)(A)(i). The court reasoned that Congress intended there
to be a distinction between monetary assistance, such as AFDC, and
the provision of services, because IRCA specifically differentiates
between "financial assistance," "medical
assistance," and "assistance." Noting that IRCA also
specifies that its provisions be construed to protect
constitutional rights, personal safety, and human dignity, the
court concluded that depriving amnesty aliens of legal services
belies one of the central purposes of the legalization decision and
is contrary to congressional intent.
